Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence, June 12, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, June 12, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:03 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. As chairman of this committee, I am pleased to have you all here today along with Ms. Dyane Adam and her staff.
Today, we are continuing our study on the application of the Official Languages Act. Our witness today, Ms. Adam, is certainly used to appearing before this committee. This appearance, however, will be her last, as Ms. Adam's term finishes on the July 31.
Ms. Adam's term in office will have been punctuated by a whole host of very positive achievements, including the tabling of seven annual reports, six audit reports and about 30 studies on a variety of subjects with the aim of enhancing the vitality and development of minority official language communities.
From the outset, you observed the need for leadership within the federal government to get things done. You have worked tirelessly in order to advance this cause.
I am very happy you are here with us today, albeit with a tinge of sadness at the knowledge that we will never see you again at this committee. However, I am sure we will have the opportunity to see you again elsewhere.
Today, you are accompanied by Pascale Giguère, Legal Advisor, and Renald Dussault, from the Compliance Assurance Branch. Without further ado, I would like to hand the floor over to you.
Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is indeed with some sadness that I appear before you today. This is my 50th parliamentary appearance today. It is good to finish on a round figure and all the more delightful appearing for the final time before a committee of the upper house of Parliament.
I am pleased therefore to be here to talk about my seventh and final annual report tabled last May. I am pleased to present the highlights to you today, and, of course, to initiate a discussion on the contents of the report.
You will also find, as an appendix to my presentation, a copy of my recommendations to the new government, included in my annual report and in dealings with the Minister of Transport.
[English]
This new report is entitled Official Languages in Canada: Taking on New Challenges,» and it was presented to the new government. This report sets out courses of action for implementing the significant changes that were approved by Parliament over the last year.
This forward-looking annual report is a call for action and governmental responsibility. It reiterates what I have said over the past seven years, and which your president also repeated. Without ongoing leadership by the government, the official languages file cannot move forward and may even lose ground.
With the strengthening of the Official Languages Act last November, each institution must henceforth take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the official languages communities and promote linguistic duality.
My annual report suggests courses of action that I believe are essential to the government's firm commitment to renewal and consolidation. It also contains a second edition of the report card for federal institutions.
Apart from that, my recommendations focus mainly on four areas: horizontal governance; promoting linguistic duality; vitality of official language communities; and new regulations.
[Translation]
Let us start by talking about the most significant amendment made to the Official Languages Act in the past year. We know all too well the role the Senate played in strengthening the act. Under this amendment, federal institutions are required to establish a strategy to foster the vitality of official language minority communities. Institutions must review their policies and programs in light of the new provisions of the act to ensure that these communities receive all the benefits that majority communities do.
Federal institutions will need to build relationships with the communities and consider them as partners in this move towards enhanced vitality. The government and the communities must adopt a consistent approach to vitality based on indicators and research to arrive at better-targeted actions and achieve concrete results for the benefit of Canadian society. We will have to document the measures taken and clarify the objectives by identifying vitality indicators that are relevant and appropriate to the specific circumstances of official language communities. The government is accountable to Canadians for both the actions that it takes and the actions that it fails to take. It is accountable for its actions before the Canadian public.
I therefore recommended that the Minister of Official Languages ensure that all federal institutions, within their respective mandates, establish a strategy to foster the vitality of official language minority communities.
[English]
The development of official language minorities, communities and promotion of linguistic duality require closer relationships between the federal government and civil society stakeholders. With the strengthening of the act, each federal institution must embody linguistic duality as a fundamental value and promote it in light of today's Canadian society. We must situate our official languages framework in the context of a changing Canada. Globalization, the information age, the knowledge society and technological innovation all remind us that there are new and ever- growing forces at play. The linguistic make-up of our country is also evolving through an increase in mixed marriages between anglophones and francophones, the influence of new commerce, the demographic profile of rural and urban regions and the increased rate are all part of the provinces and territories in community development. Cultural diversity and linguistic duality are central values of Canadian society, and federal institutions must consider them as equally important.
Therefore, I recommend that the Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages initiate a dialogue with the various stakeholders in Canadian society to identify the measures to take in order to fully integrate the fundamental values of linguistic duality and cultural diversity into our governance models and derive the full benefits that flow from them.
[Translation]
To help the government implement these new requirements, a chapter of the annual report is devoted to the issue of horizontal governance, or the mechanisms that govern the relationship between the federal government and official language communities, but also, of course, between the federal government and the various institutions.
It proposes directions for effectively handling horizontal official languages issues. The government must use appropriate and ongoing mechanisms to coordinate activities with communities themselves, but also with all key players, especially other governments. Such coordination mechanisms, for example in immigration, have also produced excellent results.
You know the communities I am talking about. The government must engage in dialogue with them to learn more about them and adjust to their diverse needs.
I therefore recommend that the Minister of Official Languages ensure the efficiency of the horizontal governance mechanisms by drawing on basic proven principles such as the sharing of knowledge and resources, mutual trust between stakeholders and sound management.
[English]
The second part of the report deals with ensuring that the federal government complies with its obligations. All the investigation studies and audits show that the government has succeeded at implementing administrative processes and plans to meet its obligations. However, even though the means are in place the results are not yet particularly convincing. This year, the analysis of the overall observations presented in the second edition of the Federal Institution Report Card shows that the service to the public and language of work are the two areas where the institution's performance is the weakest. It is disappointing that the results are mixed and that the institution's overall performance is mediocre. The federal government must take action to ensure that active offer of service and the use of French and English become part of institutional culture. The government needs to assume its responsibilities to improve the current performance of the institutions and to eliminate persistent stagnation. After more than 35 years of waiting, a serious push is necessary.
[Translation]
As I noted in last year's annual report, I encourage the government to seriously examine the state of its linguistic framework. The government must adopt a regulatory framework that sets out the precise methods by which federal institutions must fulfil their obligations in the areas of community development and promotion of linguistic duality. We must review our approach to the act so that we no longer see it as a collection of separate parts, on communications with the public, language of work, promoting duality, but rather as a coherent and logical whole, that reflects society's changing realities.
Considering the amendments made to the act over the past year and our country's socio-demographic changes over the past decade, it is clear that the current regulations are no longer relevant to the realities of Canadian society. The levelling-off witnessed with respect to the delivery of services to the public in the official language of their choice is only one example of the need to modernize the regulations. It would therefore be appropriate to create new regulations, based on a coherent and effective implementation of the act.
I therefore recommend that the president of the Treasury Board, for the purpose of establishing adapted, coherent and effective official languages regulations within the government, modernize the Official Languages Regulations, communications with and services to the public, to allow Canadians to receive services of equal quality in the official language of their choice.
Secondly, that he examine the relevance of adopting new regulations that aim to specify the implementation of the obligations set out in other parts of the Official Languages Act, particularly Parts V and VII.
[English]
Air Canada's situation has been a concern throughout my mandate. I would be remiss if I did not tell you about the one last request I made to the federal government. You probably remember that the latest restructuring created a regulatory vacuum concerning the language obligations of its various subsidiaries.
[Translation]
I therefore recommend that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduce a bill as soon as possible to ensure that Canadian travellers, both anglophone and francophone, retain their right to be served in their official language of choice by all Air Canada subsidiaries, and that Air Canada employees also retain their language rights.
On this note, I am concerned by the recent response from the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, who indicated in a letter that his department is still not ready to take a stand on the issue. And yet, this is an example of a gesture that promotes linguistic duality that the government can make right away. In fact, the House of Commons Transport Committee has already considered a bill of this nature and collected evidence last fall. The new government simply has to present a revised version of the bill in the House of Commons.
Further procrastination will only serve to enshrine a situation in which the rights of both employees and the public are regressing. Understandably, I am concerned by this response.
[English]
Linguistic duality is more firmly rooted than ever before as a fundamental value of Canadian society. However, the decisions and actions of our political and administrative leaders do not always reflect a central social value and, as a consequence, equality of English and French is by no means a given in today's Canadian society. Now, more than ever, citizens expect that the federal institution will fulfill its obligations under the Official Languages Act. The government is responsible for enforcing the country's laws. Parliamentarians must therefore demonstrate full respect for the Official Languages Act so we can cross the threshold into true equality.
So far, the government has been somewhat timid in its public response to my report. Since public leadership is needed for the federal government in its federal institutions to recognize and implement the desired changes, I expect that the government will state clearly and publicly the approach that it intends to adopt to get meaningful results.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions and to hear your comments.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your presentation, Madam Commissioner. I would like to thank you for your commitment and your vision over the past seven years.
As you are aware, our committee will conduct a study on the relocation of headquarters from bilingual regions to unilingual ones, and in particular on the relocation of the Canadian Tourism Commission from Ottawa to Vancouver.
In your presentation, you suggested the creation of regulations to support Part V of the Official Languages Act. In your opinion, why would the adoption of new regulations on language of work be more effective that policies and guidelines?
Ms. Adam: I will start my response with the example you referred to, namely the relocation of headquarters from a bilingual region to, in this particular case, one that is not designated bilingual as far as language of work is concerned.
As we know, the previous government basically decided to adopt a temporary policy to preserve, in this particular case, the right of French-speaking employees to work in their own language. This is a good example as far as discussing regulations is concerned. Under broader regulations and those that currently exist on communication with the public, and in particular on language of work, situations like the one you just referred to in your example could be accounted for. For example obligations could be set out which would apply to the relocation of any headquarters to a non- designated bilingual area. In this way, there would be no need to act on a case-by-case basis. One of the advantages of such a regulatory framework would be that it would provide guidelines, lay out various scenarios, and safeguard that previously acquired rights. This would prevent the kind of regression which occurred in the 1990s, for example, when one government took over from another.
Senator Tardif: You have given an example. But are there criteria, in your opinion, which should be included in any such regulations?
Ms. Adam: My team and I have reviewed the current regulations in the area of services to, and communications with, the public. Many of the criteria currently in use are almost strictly numeric even though the act provides for the use of other criteria including for example those of a community-based nature. At the Commissioner's Office we are currently looking at how we can assist government in reviewing the current regulations with a view to perhaps broadening them. It is all very well to give recommendations, but we also play a support role. Once the government has agreed to initiate this process, we will provide it with more precise criteria in order to enhance the regulations, for example, by simplifying them.
In our annual report, we give the example of an individual taking an Air Canada flight enjoying certain rights at the point of departure, losing them mid-flight, only to regain them at the point of arrival. We would like there to be more consistency in the provision of services. Implementing new criteria will produce more consistent and comprehensive results for Canadians.
Senator Plamondon: I have two questions to ask you. My first is on immigration and my second on lobbyists and officials. In another committee, we studied the issue of non-replacement by Canadians born in Canada, which is a problem in every industrialized country. Increasingly, we rely on other countries where neither French nor English is spoken to address our productivity needs. Is reliance on immigration problematic as far as the application of the act is concerned?
Secondly, I commend you on the stands you have taken. However, I also feel somewhat frustrated because your recommendations have not necessarily been implemented. With your inside knowledge of how government works and how effective lobbyists are when they visit senior officials, do you get the feeling there is an organized resistance?
Ms. Adam: First, on the issue of immigration, earlier in my term we published two studies on the issue which made the federal government aware of how important a consideration of linguistic duality is in any policy relating to immigration and inclusion in official language communities. In doing so, and thanks to the bill, we were able to influence a number of parliamentarians. We wanted to ensure that the French fact is recognized in Canada so that in future minorities get all the benefits the anglophone linguistic community gets when it comes to immigration.
The government then took a number of measures, some of which I will outline. First, it signed agreements with various provinces on immigration. Quebec has already had its agreement for some time. A linguistic clause was inserted calling on the provinces to ensure minority francophones get their fair share of immigrants and that they be involved in the recruitment process. The federal government has also moved ahead with the implementation of initiatives with communities to ensure they are more welcoming and have the resources they need not only to recruit but also to support integration.
So this initiative is moving along well but will have to be followed very closely to ensure it gets the additional resources and an ongoing commitment from government.
Senator Plamondon: Which you do not have at the moment?
Ms. Adam: The current government has undertaken to respect the Official Languages Action Plan. Included in the action plan was the recovery plan put forward by the previous government which included an immigration community development component. As you are aware, this plan will come to an end in 2008. We need to immediately start assessing its impact and thinking about what to do after the plan comes to an end. Canada has not reached its immigration objectives for a very long time. So this issue is not dead, on the contrary, it is very active and important for Canada. So in that respect, we must ensure that the government's commitment is not only maintained, but built upon and renewed.
As far as lobbying is concerned, I do not know if you are referring to any particular matters. I do not see what goes on behind the scenes. I work directly with Parliament of course, but also with government. So, I cannot tell you which institutions this involves.
If you are asking me if there are some federal institutions that are resisting the implementation of the act more than others, and are coming up with good reasons to skirt their obligations, the answer is yes. Some are more resistant than others.
Senator Plamondon: Which ones?
Ms. Adam: Well, you can start with Air Canada, which is one of our institutions, and also the Department of Defence, which has made the headlines today and which is an important federal institution, and there is also the Canadian armed forces. Our last investigation, which was made public by the plaintiff, clearly demonstrates this is a chronic problem. Even our first Official Languages Commissioner, Keith Spicer, in 1971, indicated this was the case. In his report, he called upon the Canadian armed forces to cease offering bilingual positions to unilingual people because such behaviour encouraged non-compliance with the act. The same conclusion was reached by other commissioners. Our investigation clearly demonstrates we still have only 39 or 44 per cent of bilingual-designated positions filled by bilingual employees in the Department of Defence, and notably in the Canadian armed forces, after 40 years of official languages legislation in Canada. That is a pretty poor performance. I should remind you that in the federal public service that figure is currently 85 per cent. So there is a discrepancy. They are really lagging far behind compared to other federal government institutions.
Senator Comeau: I am sorry this is your last visit, Madam Commissioner. I have always liked the way you go about your duties. Even though, as we say, no one is irreplaceable, it will be hard to replace you.
I would like to come back to the point raised by Senator Tardif concerning the relocation of the Canadian Tourism Commission. If we impose regulations on the relocation not only of the Canadian Tourism Commission but of other departments — a number of people have dreamt about the possibility of some departments in Ottawa being relocated to the regions — would we be creating a situation in which all relocations would only be to regions designated bilingual and, consequently, those regions not designated bilingual would be the big losers? Are we not in the process of sidelining less bilingual communities like Halifax, for example, in order to protect federal government public servants?
Ms. Adam: I stated earlier that the legislation needs to be interpreted as a whole, and not as a series of unrelated parts. Federal institutions like the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose headquarters is in Prince Edward Island, have an obligation to provide services to the public. A head office which moves to the regions will still have to meet this obligation by virtue of its very nature. In this way, the public's right to be served in the language of its choice will be upheld.
As far as language of work is concerned, we know where the designated bilingual areas are. New Brunswick, Quebec and some parts of Ontario and the National Capital Region are the only places in the country where Canadian citizens and federal public servants are entitled to work in their own language. Under Part VII, the federal government has an obligation to enhance the vitality of official languages communities and to promote linguistic duality. One of the best ways the federal government can support the development and vitality of these communities is to enable their residents, who work in these communities, to be able to function in their language within federal institutions.
I would frame your question differently. Currently, when institutions such as the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Canadian Tourism Commission, and perhaps other bodies, are transferred to a unilingual language of work region, the residents in these communities, such as in Prince Edward Island, are not entitled to work in their own language.
I am proposing the opposite. All headquarters in all regions of Canada would be bound not only to serve the public in both official languages but also to support Part VII of the act and respect employees' choice of language of work. This would further strengthen our official language communities in the regions.
Senator Comeau: Does this mean that to promote the concept of relocating head offices, the regions headquarters will be relocated to will be designated bilingual by the federal government?
Ms. Adam: I am not asking for the region to be designated bilingual, but that any institution of which the headquarters are to be relocated to any part of the country have an obligation to respect Part V of the act, which is the employee's right to work in the language of his or her choice. The regulations would define the conditions.
Senator Comeau: We have heard arguments that they would go beyond this. Yes, the institution would have to make sure its employees could continue to work in their language, whether it be French or English, but some have said, for instance, that these employees' children would no longer be in a francophone community. Let us take the example of a French-speaker who moves to an English-speaking area, and whose children do not have an opportunity to speak French in the community. I am reiterating an argument which has already been made. It goes beyond the language of work. The language spoken at home starts to suffer. What must be done?
Ms. Adam: Before answering that question, I should point out the recommendation I am making is not simply to the effect that one current employee should be entitled to work in his or her language, but rather that all employees would have the right to work in the language of their choice.
As far as children are concerned, any relocation anywhere will always have an impact. This is clear with the Canadian armed forces. It has an impact on communities. I think the federal government needs to think about that. However, we know that outside designated bilingual regions, there are more and more communities throughout Canada which have schools that are active in this area. I think that these factors need to be taken into consideration when decisions are made. Communities can also support those new families. There are relationships that need to be built.
Senator Comeau: That answers my question. In your comments, you referred to a collaborative mechanism which, to a large extent, constitutes a new cooperative approach with communities. Have you had the opportunity to look at this closely or have you made any recommendations to the government as to what mechanism it should favour under this new approach?
Ms. Adam: The government has a clear obligation to take positive measures to enhance the development of communities. Experts in community development will tell you that in order to enhance community development, whether it be linguistic or otherwise, communities need to be fully involved, if not at the centre of such development. This is why we are suggesting horizontal governance. Horizontal in the sense that federal institutions must work together because often departments tend to work in stovepipes. And yet, community development involves many sectors, not only the cultural sector, but also the economy and health care. Communities need to play a key role in developing their own vision.
We have gone over the various studies and research. From this research, we can see that it is important for the government to develop permanent collaborative mechanisms. I am not talking about a yearly call, nor am I referring to an occasional meeting; stakeholders involved with these communities need to be fairly permanent. We have heard stories of consultation between government and citizens where the spokesperson is constantly changing. We need to establish relationships based on trust in order to achieve the outcomes we are hoping for.
There are, among others, two good examples of official languages communities success stories, one of which is in the area of health care. Under the action plan, there has been equal investment in Quebec's English-speaking communities and in its French-speaking ones. Collaborative mechanisms have been developed for use between departments and communities. Communities are working well with federal and provincial governments. This has led to pan-Canadian initiatives to train health care professionals in French, who will go on to be hired in health care establishments throughout the various provinces and territories. The federal government, along with the communities, has worked well in this area. We agree that things are not perfect, but there are results. The immigration file is another good example. There has been solid, ongoing cooperation with the communities. The type of cooperation may differ from one file to the next.
Senator Comeau: Following the changes to Part VII under Bill S-3 last year, would you recommend we look at new programs in order to address this new reality?
Ms. Adam: I believe minority official language communities are part of Canadian society just like majority official language communities. All policies, all initiatives and all programs must be developed not only with the majority's interests at heart; there should also be consideration given to the impact they will have on the country's minority language communities. Mainstream programs must be flexible enough to be applied to, and adapted to the particular needs of all communities across the country. Even linguistic communities differ from one region to another. I would hope that officials, in particular, develop a lens through which to assess the impact of their decisions and actions upon minorities. We are hoping for equal outcomes as far as educational and school rights are concerned. Judges make no bones about this. This can mean ``different treatment to achieve equal results.'' So both official languages communities must receive equal benefits, but to achieve this, our federal institutions may have to hand out unequal treatment. I am not talking necessarily about little side programs receiving $5 million while the real investment is made in the real program. That would be dangerous, in my opinion.
Senator Losier-Cool: Ms. Adam, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your work. Indeed, six years does go by quickly. I remember your earlier appearances before the committee when I was co-chair and we had a joint committee. We were about to meet the future commissioner. I recalled you saying — perhaps following a remark that the best things come in small packages — that you were known as somebody who shook things up. Without going over all of the past six years, how have you shaken things up the most? And when you did shake things up, how did they turn out? Perhaps this is what Senator Plamondon was trying to get you to say earlier.
Ms. Adam: I have been in this position for seven years. How have I shaken things up the most? In my opinion, change does not occur unless there is some sort of upheaval. For a society or a particular group to progress, there has to be some level of discomfort. You need to provoke instability. If a person or a government is convinced they have the truth and the way, you will not be able to change their minds.
The office of the commissioner has been involved in many areas, but my first responsibility was to make sure the government of the day understood following the program review that it had really fallen behind in the area of official languages and that language rights had been lost. So my first annual report was a diagnosis and like any good psychologist, before taking action, I made sure I had a firm understanding of the situation.
So the first annual report was essentially a diagnosis which indicated clearly to the government what had happened. Its goal was to make the government take ownership of this diagnosis. The commissioner's office may act as a detonator to stimulate change, but the onus is on government and federal institutions to make sure it happens. When they took ownership of the diagnosis and developed a recovery plan, an official languages minister was appointed, the Official Languages Act Action Plan was adopted, paving the way for community development opportunities such as those which had not been previously identified such as immigration, the Internet and so forth. In my opinion, this is a good example of how the commissioner's office does a good job in carrying out investigations, audits and reviews. When we present this information to parliamentarians and they listen and act, it makes a big difference.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am going to come back to my real question, so to speak. I read in the Voix acadienne — and this article may have appeared in other newspapers — that Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, was recommending grants, staggered over several years, for francophone organizations. Has the Auditor General made such a recommendation before? I know that this is not a part of your report, Ms. Adam, but your answer would satisfy my curiosity.
Ms. Adam: The commissioner's office had made such recommendations several times to the government.
Senator Losier-Cool: Had the Auditor General done so?
Ms. Adam: No, the Auditor General is doing this for different reasons. I cannot claim to speak for her, but she is looking at this from the point of view of financial probity. It is another approach, but at the end of the day, she will reach the same conclusions. An ad hoc approach will not provide results.
Senator Losier-Cool: After government changed hands, Minister John Baird said he wanted to set up a working group to review the funding of organizations and grants and contributions programs. Based on your reading of things, will this working group work with officials or does this signal a reallocation of responsibilities?
Ms. Adam: Are you referring to official languages?
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Adam: I cannot speak for the minister. I have no idea what he may be thinking. And I do not see Mr. Baird's role in this. I thought you were talking about the structure under the Privy Council.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, from what I understand, that structure does exist, but in addition to it there is another group which will focus solely on funding for official language minority communities and their organizations.
Ms. Adam: That is news to me. I cannot say that is the way I understood it. You would have to ask government officials. The structure at the Privy Council which was intended to coordinate any government action in the area of official languages, which played a bit of a watchdog role, to ensure that ministers and their senior officials had a more coordinated approach to their work, was overseen by the minister responsible for official languages. Its secretariat was transferred to Canadian Heritage and within Canadian Heritage there is also a branch responsible for delivering official languages support programs. In some ways, it is a two-pronged structure, because there are two assistant deputy ministers, one responsible for the secretariat and the other responsible for the official languages support programs. However, they both report to the same deputy minister and to the minister responsible for official languages.
I do have a number of misgivings because of the risk of there not being a clear distinction between the two branches' mandates, not only in relation to communities, but within the federal government. We know that clear and consistent leadership is essential. I have concerns because Canadian Heritage is certainly not the Privy Council.
Under the action plan, there was an innovation program developed for the federal public service including grants managed by Mr. Baird's department. These grants came to an end because that section of the action plan finished in 2003. Mr. Baird publicly announced he would put the grants on ice while he reviewed the situation. Is that what that is in reference to? I have no idea, but there was a decision made by Mr. Baird which had an impact on official languages and especially the federal public service.
Senator Losier-Cool: the minister will come before us at some stage and will be able to clarify all of that.
Another little issue I am interested in. This morning, in a Globe and Mail editorial, there was an analysis on bilingualism. It stated that the percentage of bilingual people in Canada was dropping. The article referred to Mr. Fraser's book Sorry, I don't speak French, of course. Education is to blame, in other words, educational programs in the area of official languages.
Education is a provincial area jurisdiction. How can we address this failure? Earlier, you referred to progress in the area of health and justice. However, we always hear that education is where the greatest deficiencies are. It would appear that the steps being take to solve the problem aren't working. Am I mistaken? We need to educate more bilingual people. In my opinion that is the real source of the problem. What do you think?
Ms. Adam: I would like to make a bit of a distinction concerning the statistics. The rate of bilingualism is not dropping in Canada, it is going up. When you look at statistics, you need to bear in mind people's age. If we look at the 14 to 19 age range, they are lot more bilingual than our seniors. The bilingualism rate is on its way up, but currently, one out of every four young people self-identifies as bilingual. What we want — and what we intended under the action plan — is to double this level of bilingualism especially among anglophones, and that is why there has been a boost in investment in second language teaching.
What can we do to achieve this? There is no doubt that it would be far easier if the federal government were responsible for education. However, that is not the case. Canada is a federation, and so, we must focus on promoting linguistic duality. The federal government has been the largest bilingual employer for almost 40 years. However, it does little to actively promote the importance of learning a second language at school or university; yet, as the government invests in primary, secondary and even tertiary education, and wants as many bilingual employees as possible, it would make sense to do so. It is not just a matter of becoming bilingual, but also of being bicultural and of being able to achieve this across Canada. It makes for better public servants, as it makes for people who are better able not only to understand the country's linguistic differences, but also our regional differences. Public servants are mandated to perform policy analysis and service delivery; a greater promotion of linguistic duality would make them more sensitive to Canada's reality and, in turn, would make them better public servants. To my mind, this is the line that ought to be taken, and nobody should feel uncomfortable about it.
When I was a student, the federal government did not come to the university to tell us what it was looking for in a young graduate. I really believe that a lot could be done in terms of promotion.
The Chairman: Senator Champagne, and then, on the same subject, a supplementary question from Senator Plamondon.
Senator Champagne: Thank you. You touched on the point that I wanted to raise. I find it incredible that, almost 40 years after the inception of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we still need somebody like you to act as a guardian angel and police the government. It is unbelievable that there are still people who become aggressive when faced with people speaking the other official language; people who are totally indifferent, or even vehemently opposed, to the notion of learning the other language.
Yet, Canadians are no less able than people of other countries. How is it that Swiss children speak French, English, Italian and German by the time they leave secondary school? In Luxemburg, a small country, our young school leaver also speaks Luxembourgish. Here, in spite of all of the recent developments in communication, people do not have the desire to learn even one other language and, consequently, will never experience the pleasure it brings. When one already speaks a second language, it is much easier to learn a second or a third. Why is it that Canadians do not feel the need to read Félix Leclerc in French and Margaret Atwood in English, or to go and see a film in its original language?
You asked what could be done. While I agree that it is important to promote linguistic duality, I also feel that we have missed the boat somewhere along the way. We have lost entire generations, unable to instill in them the pleasure of learning. It would be so much easier in a country like ours if everybody spoke both languages.
What do you believe to be the root of this problem that we are unable to eradicate?
Ms. Adam: Our report did discuss the promotion of linguistic duality; and I recommended that the Minister of Official Languages initiate real dialogue on the matter. Lastly, I should point out that linguistic duality cannot be simply decreed through legislation and regulation. Your discourse is one of openness to the other and recognition of difference. The rest of the world sees Canada as being a country that is open to diversity. Our version of linguistic duality is held up as a model for the rest of the world. That cannot be denied, even though we know that our model is not perfect. When compared with the rest of the world, the Canadian model is one of openness, which allows for interaction with the other.
There is no easy solution to the problem. The English language is the dominant force in Canadian society, as it is on the North American continent. American society truly is far more homogenous than Canadian society, but being so close to such a powerful neighbour makes it impossible for Canada to escape US cultural influence. Our situation is different to that in Europe where many languages coexist and interact.
It's not only a domestic factor, but it also depends on the context. Young Canadians are interested. Every study has shown that they want to learn another language, or perhaps two or three. This is something new, because previously, people wondered why they should learn another language. Even with globalization, there is change on the horizon.
Perhaps the time is right to debate this issue within the context of the knowledge economy.
I will conclude my answer by saying this: when I was the director of Glendon College, a bilingual university in Toronto, we invited famous people, and at one point we invited a Canadian ambassador who gave an address to students studying international relations. He told them one thing: you know, we prefer candidates who are fluent in two, three or four languages, and then we teach them about foreign policy, rather then the other way around. It takes a huge amount of investment to teach an adult Chinese. The ambassador's speech pointed to the importance of learning languages. Unfortunately, we don't hear this message often enough because when students do hear it, it speaks to them because they want to set goals in their lives, they want to succeed, and when they hear that type of thing, they will go out and take language courses.
Senator Plamondon: Which brings me to my question with regard to the statistics you gave us and which reveal that, in Canada, one out of four young people between the ages of 14 and 19 identify themselves as being bilingual. Did you break down that information by province? If so, is Quebec the most bilingual province? I think it would make sense for one young person between the ages of 14 and 19 in Quebec to be bilingual, rather than in Alberta.
Ms. Adam: That is public data from the Canadian census.
Senator Plamondon: Shouldn't it be equal?
Ms. Adam: It is not equal. Young anglophone Quebecers were much less bilingual. But now, I think 90 p. 100 of them are, and I think that 40 p. 100 of young francophones are bilingual. You are perfectly right. Depending on the population segment, results will vary.
We conducted a study in cooperation with the Human Rights Commission on the rate of bilingualism of our immigrants, and to my great surprise, we discovered that they are more bilingual, English and French, than our native anglophones. I think that immigrants are 20 per cent bilingual and anglophones are at about 17 per cent in certain segments. Of course, it all depends on the region in the country, but also on age.
Senator Robichaud: Senator Comeau and I are a minority on the committee, but I assure you that we are well respected and that our rights are upheld.
As far as language of work is concerned, you said that in the armed forces, between 39 and 44 per cent of bilingual positions are indeed filled by people who are truly bilingual. That is very low. In the public service, you said that it was 85 per cent.
Ms. Adam: Eighty per cent of positions designated bilingual are held by people who have the matching language skills.
Senator Robichaud: How does this affect the language of work? During your mandate as commissioner, did you see any change? It is one thing to say that we have bilingual employees, but it is well known that francophones often switch to English. I think it will definitely encourage young people who are entering the labour market and who want to work in the public service to see that they will be able to work in the language of their choice.
Have you seen any progress in that regard?
Ms. Adam: Yes, there has been progress. Over the last few years, and even over the last few decades, there have been policies which enabled some employees to stay in a job for five or ten years without worrying about the consequences if they did not reach the language level required for their position.
The Chrétien government really changed those policies. The message was very clear within the federal administration. If an employee wished to be promoted to a bilingual position or to a supervisory position that required a person to be bilingual, he or she had to be so right away.
That sent an important message announcing that language skills count and that it is not a secondary consideration. The message being sent previously was that it was incidental, that there were other requirements that could always suffice. Now, public servants know very well that if they want to move up the ranks, they must be bilingual.
You asked me if that was changing? Yes. We carried out three studies, including one that will be made public Wednesday in New Brunswick, on language of work in the bilingual regions; one in Ottawa, one in Quebec, and now one in New Brunswick.
It is fascinating to see that within the federal government, all things being equal according to the regions, we truly have a linguistic capacity. We are much more bilingual than in the past. People have different levels of bilingualism, but they are bilingual.
However, we do not use that capacity. That is the biggest problem and there are very harmful consequences from this. For example, for the anglophone majority that does not use their second language, the result is that their skills diminish. They want to apply at a given time for another position but they are not successful on the test that they have already passed. Anyone will tell you, if you do not use a skill, you will not pass. They then have to return to language training.
But it is rather absurd; how many times must public servants be sent for language training? How many times must they be tested? Whereas if only they really used their language — and there, francophones or the minority group according to where you are in a country — also have a responsibility, that of using their mother tongue and making themselves heard.
Senator Robichaud: How can we encourage that? You are telling me that now, in key positions you must have a mastery of both languages, and that this fact is respected by the machinery of government, so how can we encourage people to use that other language, but not require it? If people who are in decision-making positions are bilingual, I am certain that they will be open to using the second language.
Ms. Adam: In management, there is a golden rule and it is valid for just about any behaviour that we really want to encourage around us. The leader and the entire management team must personify the values that they want to see flourish in the organization. Every federal institution is an organization and you can apply all of the principles of corporate administration to it.
If the leader and his entire team demonstrate and personify the daily usage of both official languages, the dynamics will change. During a meeting, some will not use the other language; they must be encouraged to examine this situation. For some, it is a reflex because as soon as they leave the federal government, they always speak English, and so on.
This is more of a psychological issue. There should be a position for a full-time psychologist to promote the bilingual environment and contact between cultures. How can you work in the same environment with two cultures and two languages? It starts with the family. There are families who live in both languages all the time. They could even teach the federal administration how to do so.
How is it possible to function in both languages while always respecting the other person? This is mostly an issue of attitude and behaviour. For many people, it is not a conscious thing, but, for example, when an anglophone speaks with some hesitation in his or her second language, the other person starts to speak English. What message is being sent to the other person at that point? It is discouraging.
These are not rules and we are now getting into another sphere of the implementation of the act, and I am referring to interpersonal relations. That is where managers have a very important role to play as models of ethical behaviour, of respect for the legislation. If the manager does not care, the impact is very different.
Senator Robichaud: You have therefore noted that the obligation that institutions and departments now have to promote this is respected?
Ms. Adam: I have stated this very directly to the clerk and to all of the deputy ministers and heads of agencies, that they and not the minister are responsible for the daily implementation of the Official Languages Act. As senior public servants and upper management of the institution, they must ensure that their employees are able to work in their language.
In that sense, it is up to them to create a culture within which the usage of both official languages is customary. I would add that as an assessment criterion in their annual performance assessment: to create a culture fostering the customary usage of both languages. They would be assessed on this aspect and it would have an impact on their performance bonus.
Senator Robichaud: But the assessor would have to feel the same way about that as you.
Ms. Adam: That is right.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Exactly five years ago when I first was appointed, you and I met and talked about some of the issues raised today. When Senator Champagne talks about having a culture of both languages I hope that one day we have that right across the country. One challenge in my province of British Columbia is that there seems to be a fairly large French-speaking immigrant population. They are struggling to find support for French-language schools. French immersion is there but it is not as great a challenge as having other French cultural services. Can you to comment on what is being done for those communities.
I met with them last Friday and learned that they have very few support services and are worried that they will lose their French culture if they do not receive some government support.
Ms. Adam: We talk throughout the year about the commitments of the federal government with respect to the action plan and the current government has sustained that. However, now with Bill S-3 and its reinforced Part VII, we have never been so better tooled t to achieve and provide the support those communities need.
When we look at the vitality of communities, most people think in numbers. How many are you? We know that the numbers are part of the equation but they are not synonymous to vitality.
In B.C., I believe that we stand at around 50,000 to 60,000 and growing as fast as the English-speaking community. Over the last seven years, we have made remarkable achievements in B.C. I would not say that the community is secure but, for example, Simon Fraser University has introduced a post-secondary diploma in French. This is new. All the bilingual francophones want to have university-level courses in their own language but they could not get them so they had to move outside.
We also have new programs in terms of training at different levels. The colleges and universities in the Francophonie are also now linked together and providing services at the college level in B.C. for those communities in the area of Verte. This is the initiative I was mentioning.
Those are little examples, but they are building blocks. We also have in B.C. Vancouver 2010, which is coming soon. That program has mobilized the community with the rest of francophone Canadians — and also a number of francophiles and people like you — to say that we want to make those winter games really bilingual and a showcase for Canada, not only in terms of language but culture.
This initiative will provide a boost to the community itself, because it will become a showcase. Also, with respect to other communities, francophones will see their own French-speaking community as different, as an asset rather than as a cost, which is what we often hear about.
In your province, it is certainly moving. It is a community that, as far as I am concerned, has a vision of where it wants to go. My main message to the communities is that the reinforcement of the Official Languages Act is the responsibility of the federal government institutions, which must act to provide the positive measures. However, the communities themselves have homework. They need to look at how they will work with the federal government. What is vital for them? Where do they want to go? They have to build a certain consensus among themselves as to how they move forward on this file.
I am optimistic. It is growing, and as long as it moves forward and not backward, we are moving toward progression.
Senator Jaffer: You talked about the Olympic Games. I know you met with the Olympic committee. We are hoping to go in September and see what progress is being made. Certainly, we do not want the situation of Torino repeated in our country.
Are you satisfied with the progress the committee is making to meet the duality of languages? What more could it do?
Ms. Adam: I have my little spies in B.C. We have an office there now. That is another change that I personally thought was important.
I will not be there; I am finishing my mandate. Certainly, my office and my successor will keep working on that. It is moving forward and there are committed people, but it is like all federal institutions; you never take it for granted. We must watch over it, be there and be supportive.
However, we have been giving the right messages, and there is a team there that works. I am talking now about the committee itself. There is a lot of devotion and dedication, but we have to watch closely.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Your thoughts and comments, Madam Commissioner, have raised a great many questions on our part and given us food for thought. I have a great many questions I would like to ask you, but obviously time is marching on.
Several members around the table have told you that, often, what happens in the area of linguistic duality and official languages in this country is that a very minimalist approach is used. Rules have been applied in an isolated fashion, and the necessary funding is not put into place. For example, we limit ourselves to programs related to official languages and there is a great deal of money transferred between the federal government and the provinces in this area. Even though we have invested in education, and definitely in language training, there are still waiting lists. I believe that there are a great many things that our government has often been too timid about. You are absolutely right to say that we truly need leadership, that we need consistent, clear and concerted action.
I certainly see the challenges with this transfer of responsibility for the issue of official languages from the Privy Council to Canadian Heritage. Do you believe that this new administrative structure will truly be able to deal with the issue of horizontal governance, in accordance with Bill S-3, and support official languages communities, in accordance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Adam: I think it is the prerogative of any government to decide how they will achieve their objectives. In that sense, I give them the benefit of the doubt. But it is clear that at some point, we will have to assess the government's results. Is the leadership, indeed, insufficient, is it too scattered, too fragmented? This will very quickly be apparent, as federal institutions have a very set way of working on their mandates, in stovepipes, in a very compartmentalized way. If we do not bring them together, of course, they will continue down those paths. It will be apparent if the leadership is not strong enough to coordinate and question the departments on their actions, to lead them to act when they must, without dragging their feet or putting things off until later, that results will be not be there. There will be stagnation and we will not be able to move forward. I think that we must be vigilant, and certainly, the Office of the Commissioner will follow up in that sense.
First of all, we assess the implementation of the action plan. Also, on the issue of the implementation of Bill S-3 on the strengthening of Part VII, I gave the current government four tasks. The Office of the Commissioner would normally assess this next year, in order to be in a position to give you the facts, what the government has done about this, what role the minister will have played, etc. You will be in a better position to have the information, at least from the Office of the Commissioner, insofar as the implementation and impact of such a decision is concerned.
Senator Robichaud: I believe that we also have to pay particular attention to activities that promote group exchanges. I will draw your attention to the Games of the Canadian Francophonie, which took place in Memramcook, and a few years ago in Rivière-du-Loup. Not only were there groups of francophone delegations from all provinces and territories who attended, there were also francophiles. These games were more than just athletic competitions, they also served as a cultural exchange. It was wonderful to see all of those young people arrive and spontaneously realize that language, for them, was not a problem. They were there to meet with one another.
Unfortunately, sometimes not enough attention is given to promoting these types of activities and efforts to continue increasing participation.
Ms. Adam: You are right. We could also intensify parliamentary debates. You must know that there is also a youth model Parliament. There are all sorts of possibilities to meet with representatives from the two communities, and it is the best way to truly foster both languages.
Senator Champagne: Madam Commissioner, as you are preparing to leave your position, and as your efforts have been so useful to us, we are sad to see you go so early, because there is still so much more to do. Your eyes, your ears, your perceptions will be greatly missed. After a well-deserved vacation, I wonder what is going to occupy your hours and days. I would even have a suggestion for you.
Last weekend, I had a few spare hours and watched some television. My pride as a Canadian who has done her best to be bilingual received a boost, but I was also quite disturbed. In listening to commentators on French television, I asked myself an important question: What is the official language in France? The French need somebody like you to tell them.
The French have been using words like ``le parking,'' and ``le dancing'' for quite some time. Now they have introduced the use of ``le making of'' and other stupidities which only draws attention to the snobbery of some French people who believe that the use of English words represents the height of erudition. One thing is certain, during some of the presentations and comments aired on TV5, our translators, who are so competent, had trouble deciding which one of them should be using the microphone.
During the French Open, I heard international tennis experts talk about how the oppressive heat was making life difficult for the ``ball boys.'' They talked about the list of players who ranked at the top of the ``leader board.'' My ears were assaulted repeatedly with the number of ``aces'' the players had pulled off, and competitors had won because they had the best ``passing,'' and the champion of ``tie-breaks'' was praised. They even talked about a player who had ``debreaked.''
And lastly, believe it or not, Rafael Nadal's additional victory was a ``happy end.'' I swear to you that I am not exaggerating. If I did not understand English, I would have understood nothing. Our Canadian commentators look very good by comparison.
I thought to myself that you could go off and prepare one of your extraordinary and compelling reports on language in France. You would make a great team, along with my old friend Denise Bombardier and Gilles Vigneault. You could say: ``My dear French friends, take care of your language, because it is also ours.''
Once your report is published, I would carry your baggage and we would go see Thierry Ardisson, who has always considered our accent to be absolutely revolting and disgraceful. Our Canadian regionalisms are not uglier than the sounds and expressions of the Berrichons.
I noted in travelling the villages of Normandy, even today, as we approach the ocean, that we have the sense of being in our own country. Ms. Adam, I took the liberty of making that suggestion to you today, and we will continue along the path that you have charted out for us. You did so with conviction, rigour, as well as humour. That is very important.
I want to thank you for everything, and we will be delighted to toast to your health and wish you a wonderful future.
Ms. Adam: Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.